clark (clark@netsites.net)
Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:16:46 +0100
Platt,
Thank you for your kind words. I am just glad that we were able to make
our respective positions clear enough to each other to see that we are not
very far apart. I was just struggling to make my concept of both the
Metaphysics of Quality and my concept of Gaia fit together philosophically.
I looked up your reference and I agree with you that it covers my
uneasiness. Pirsig could not possibly cover every detail in depth but he
seems to have pointed the way in every case so far. I think that I have
pushed this thread far enough. It is time to get back to the business of
understanding Quality.
In the matter of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I really don't remember much
about it. About all I remember at the moment is that it advocated extreme
self reliance. I don't have any argument with that. Maybe sometime in the
future when we get everything taped you can give a synopsis of it. What I
really was doing was looking for some way to give you a gentle dig in
return for the tree spiking remark. Now we're even.
I agree that science has become so compartmented that most fields are
working with blinders on. Not many people are looking at the broad sweep
and trying to tie things together. Thats one of the things I admire about
Lovelock. He has rejected the regimentation and the scurrying for grants
and has financed his researches out of his own pocket. I think he is
teaching us more than most even if you don't agree with all of his ideas. A
fascinating rebel oddball.
One thing I am not sure of in your mention of teleology. I am not sure
whether you are thinking of a guiding intelligence in the operation of
Quality or whether you would be content with goal seeking. I absolutely
agree that the Metaphysics of Quality is goal seeking but I do not believe
that it is purposeful. By goal seeking I mean that processes respond in an
adaptive or conforming way to stimuli. For instance, In summer my skin tans
in the sun to reduce the reaction to the radiation. In winter I turn whiter
to allow greater interaction between my skin and the Sun's radiation. I
consider this to be goal seeking. If my skin follows the same procedure in
response to directions from some higher intelligence or being I consider
this to be purposeful. The latter case is what I call teleology. This I do
not agree with, although I do not object if other people feel more
comfortable with purpose. As with you and the arrogant scientists, I only
object if those other people insist that I must believe the way they do. I
think you are correct in saying that evolution is goal seeking. I think
this applies to the entire history of the universe as we now understand it.
Last night I was thinking along these lines and posted a few FAQ questions
to Maggie on this identical subject. I still don't feel that I have a
complete grasp of the Metaphysics of Quality and wanted to know what the
older heads thought.
I am in complete agreement with you that evolution was propelled by the
drive for Quality. In MOQ terms we are living in a sea of Dynamic Quality
whose thrust is toward the Good or greater understanding. Still with as
many starting levels as there are people but now we have an understandable
function in which to operate. I am on my second drink and running off at
the fingers. Let me know what you think. Ken Clark
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:15 CEST